Isolated limb infusion: technical aspects.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique of isolated limb infusion (ILI) for regional high dose chemotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies confined to a limb, as currently practiced at Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA). BACKGROUND: ILI is progressively being used around the world but to date the reported response rates are generally lower than those reported by MIA. DISCUSSION: This description of the ILI protocol at MIA provides details that may allow other surgeons to improve results.

Factors predictive for a positive invasive mesenteric angiogram following a positive CT angiogram in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: Computed tomographic mesenteric angiography (CTMA) is increasingly adopted in patients with massive lower gastrointestinal (LGI) bleeding. However, a positive computed tomography scan does not always translate to a positive invasive mesenteric angiography (MA) when performed. The aim of this study was to identify factors that could predict a positive invasive MA following a positive CTMA. METHODS: A review of all patients with LGI haemorrhage who had a positive CTMA followed by an invasive MA was performed. RESULTS: From July 2009 to October 2012, 33 positive CTMA scans from 30 patients were identified. Of the 33 bleeding points, 28 were in the colon, while 5 were in the small intestine. Diverticular disease accounted for 20 of the bleeding points. The median duration from the CTMA to the invasive MA was 165 (74-614) min. Of the 33 invasive MAs that were performed, only 14 demonstrated positive extravasation. Factors that were significant for a positive invasive MA included non-diverticular aetiology (odds ratio (OR), 6.75, 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.43-31.90, p = 0.029) and haemoglobin <100 g/l (OR, 14.44, 95 % CI, 1.56-133.6, p = 0.009). When the invasive MA procedure was performed within <150 min of the positive CTMA scan, it was 2.89 (95 % CI, 0.69-12.12) times more likely to be associated with a positive invasive MA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-diverticular aetiologies and lower haemoglobin levels are associated with a positive invasive MA following a positive CTMA. It is prudent to consider performing the invasive MA within 150 min after a positive CTMA.

Whole-body computed tomography in the initial assessment of trauma patients: is there optimal criteria for patient selection?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) at this Major Trauma Centre; to determine independent predictors of multi-region injury; and to evaluate the accuracy of the decision to perform WBCT in detecting multi-region injury. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed at a single Major Trauma Centre in New South Wales, Australia. All adult patients who triggered trauma team activation and required an initial CT scan were studied. Primary outcome was the presence of multi-region injury. Logistic regression with stepwise selection was used to derive a prediction model for the need for WBCT based on our primary outcome. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the accuracy of the derived model and the clinical decision to perform WBCT. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty patients were studied. WBCT scanning rate was 9.3% of all trauma activations. Of the patients who underwent WBCT, 31/98 (32.0%) had multi-region injury compared with 31/562 (5.5%) who underwent selective CT scanning (P < 0.001). Predictors of multi-region injuries were GCS <9 (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-7.0, P = 0.01), full trauma activation (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.3, P = 0.001), fall >5 m (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13.4, P = 0.003) and pedal cyclist (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.5, P = 0.02). Area under ROC curve for the clinical decision to perform WBCT was 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.76) compared with 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.80) for the prediction model. CONCLUSION: The decision to perform WBCT scans in trauma should be at the discretion of the treating clinician. Applying a prediction rule would increase the number of WBCT scans performed without improving overall accuracy.

Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: which patients are most likely to gain a survival advantage?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are considered to confer a survival advantage, however, the patient group that should be targeted is not clearly defined. This study aimed to determine the impact on survival of locoregional therapies compared with supportive care, within prognostic categories as stratified by the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) scoring system. METHODS: A prospective database was used to identify those patients who were treated with either locoregional therapy (n = 128) or supportive care (n = 92). Survival analysis was performed for groups matched by CLIP score at presentation. Comparison of important prognostic factors was undertaken and univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to assess determinants of survival. RESULTS: Use of locoregional therapies was only associated with a survival benefit in patients with a CLIP score of 1 or 2. In this group, the median survival in patients who received locoregional therapies was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval 22.7-27.4) compared with 8.9 months (95% confidence interval 7.3-10.5) for supportive care (P = 0.001). For patients with CLIP scores of 3 or greater, no survival benefit of locoregional therapies was observed. Multivariate analysis revealed locoregional intervention, CLIP score, tumor symptoms, alpha-fetoprotein level, bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase level as independent prognostic indicators. CONCLUSION: Locoregional therapies should be targeted specifically to patients with non-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma as assessed by validated scoring systems. Use of these therapies in patients with advanced disease does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit and may expose patients to unnecessary harm.

Outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma referred to a tertiary centre with availability of multiple treatment options including cadaveric liver transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary cancer of the liver with an established causal link to viral hepatitis and other forms of chronic liver disease. AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the determinants of outcome in patients with HCC referred to a tertiary centre for management. METHOD: Two hundred and thirty-five prospective patients with HCC and minimum 12-month follow-up were studied. RESULTS: The cohort was heterogeneous, with 52% Caucasian, 40% Asian and 5% of Middle-Eastern origin. Independent predictors of outcome included tumour size and number, the presence of ascites or portal vein thrombosis, alpha-foetoprotein >50 U/L and an impaired performance status. Treatment was determined on an individual case basis by a multidisciplinary tumour team. Surgical resection was primary treatment in 43 patients, liver transplantation in 40 patients, local ablation (percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or alcohol injection) in 33 patients, transarterial chemoembolisation in 33 patients, chemotherapy or other systemic therapy in 30 patients and no treatment in 56 patients. After adjustment for significant covariates, both liver transplantation (P<0.001) and surgical resection (P=0.029) had a significant effect on patient survival compared with no treatment, but local ablation (P=0.410) and chemoembolisation (P=0.831) did not. Liver transplantation resulted in superior overall and, in particular, disease-free survival compared with surgical resection (disease-free survival 84 vs 15% at 5 years). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, both surgical resection and liver transplantation significantly improve the survival of patients with HCC, but improvements need to be made to the delivery of loco-regional therapy to enhance its effectiveness.